Will Opposition Parties Finally Bring Harper Down over Detainee Issue - Election Anyone?

106 posts / 0 new
Last post
NDPP
Will Opposition Parties Finally Bring Harper Down over Detainee Issue - Election Anyone?

Parties Closing In On Deal to Release Afghan Records

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/parties-closing-in-on-deal-...

"The opposition majority has threatened to vote the minority Harper government in contempt of Parliament, and Mr Miliken is expected to pave the way for such a move if talks fail.

A successful vote would probably trigger an election because, experts say, it's hard to imagine the Harper government continuing to govern after being found in contempt.

Bloc Quebecois House Leader Pierre Paquette suggested the parties are still significantly divided.."

1:00 PM is the drop deadline for a deal. Will his  opposition majority enablers finally bring Harper down? I doubt it..

Chester Drawers

No way.  Liberals would be the biggest losers of this.  The Cons, BLOC and Dippers would all gain seats.  Iggy and his merry band of wimps will run to the hills as fast as they can if there was a chance for an election. 

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

...sounds to me that Chester is terrified that Iggy might grow a spine.

Stockholm

There is a difference between bringing the government down over the detainee issue and bringing the government down over whether or not the government has complied with a vote in parliament to hand over documents that may or may not show evidence that the government did anything illegal in the treatment of Afghan detainees.

With any luck, once MPs get their hands on the unredacted (why can't we just call a spade a spade and say "uncensored"?) documents, they will find clear evidence of malfeasance. At that point, let's have a motion of censure in parliament etc...

NDPP

MPs Strike Deal on Afghan Detainees

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mps-strike-deal-on-afghan-d...

"Parliamentary showdown averted as government, opposition, agree on viewing uncensored documents; details of dispute-resolution panel still under discussion.."

Triphop

Some of the handovers happened when the Liberals were in power. The liberals set up most of the bureaucratic machinery responsible for the detainees. They are not going after the Conservatives for stuff they were also party to. And even the bloc aren't going to go after the army. You can't dig dirt on detainee transfers without implicating individual soldiers and even the Bloc doesnt want to be seen bashing troops. Even in Quebec voters will crucify any party that attacks soldiers. Nobody cares about IED making terrorists who splash acid on little girls having their teeth knocked out but even Bloc Quebecois voters support Canadian soldiers. The opposition parties wanted something to go after the Cons with and Harper threw it back at them as a Support the Troops issue. Miliken called everybody's bluff and now all the parties just want the whole thing to go away.

Unionist

Triphop wrote:
Miliken called everybody's bluff and now all the parties just want the whole thing to go away.

You got that right.

 

Stockholm

"You can't dig dirt on detainee transfers without implicating individual soldiers and even the Bloc doesnt want to be seen bashing troops. Even in Quebec voters will crucify any party that attacks soldiers."

That's total nonsense. First of all any "dirt" on the detainee transfers would almost certainly implicate decision makers in Ottawa as opposed to individual soldiers. Secondly, if by chance soldiers were implicated - I can't see how it would harm the whistle-blowers. I don't recall the Democrats in the US suffering at the polls because they pointed out the atrocities committed by individual American soldiers at Abu Ghraib as an example of Bush's mismanagement of the war. I also don't recall Democrats in the US having any regrets that evidence of Calley's mass murder at My Lai came out and made the GOP look bad.

According to this absurd argument, the Tories will lose support now because they are the government and an individual soldier Russell Williams has been exposed as a serial killer and rapist - by allowing Williams to be arrested and charged the Tories are attacking soldiers!!

 

NDPP

"If the opposition parties had in the first place refused to accept the opportunistic and phony framing of the documents issue they would not now be be bending themselves out of shape trying to compromise on something that should not be compromised: total unrestricted access to the documents that will tell us once and for all the critical question at the core of this issue:

Are Canadian senior officials, up to and including ministers of the crown, guilty of war crimes?" - M. Dobbin

 

NDPP
Triphop

"Secondly, if by chance soldiers were implicated..."

They will be since individual soldiers decided who to take into custody and hand over to Afghan authorities. The buck stops with them. This is how the public sees it. Russel the Rapist is a red herring. Even after that arrest people avoid criticizing soldiers.

Another problem is loose lips and poor security with copies of documents. It now looks like Harper/MacKay, Iggy, Layton and Duceppe will have access to the documents but nobody else under oath of secrecy. And that's a good thing. There are too many loose lips and slobs like Maxime Bernier and cokehead Helena Guergis for even Harper to trust in his own party. Somebody from the NDP leaked voter info to the Canadian Tamil Congress to use to troll for Tamil names to solicit LTTE donations. The suspicion was Maurine Karagianis' office. You don't think sensitive info about things like security protocols will be leaked back to Afghanistan by al Qaeda operatives in MPs' offices? The FBI in the States had a terrific problem with Arabic and Urdu translators and CAIR consultants tipping off suspects over raids and searches. Layton, Ignatieff, Duceppe aren't going to give Harper ammunition on the national security and troop safety issues by letting stuff out and they have their shit together enough to not pull a Maxime. But backbenchers might, or might even just be slobs and lose documents like Bernier.

 

Polunatic2

I don't think there was ever a danger of the government being brought down on this issue. 

Quote:
Jack Harris (NDP) “It satisfies concerns about national security, while ensuring Canadians will learn the truth about how the government responded to the possibility of torture by the Afghan authorities to whom detainees were being transferred.”

Doesn't that still remain to be seen? Don't we still need to know who the eminent panelists will be? And what exactly is meant by "national security"? The "possibility of torture by Afghan authorities"? Didn't we all know from Day 1 - even before Day 1, that the fate of some detainees would be torture or summary execution by either the invaders or the Afghan security forces? 

Stockholm

"It now looks like Harper/MacKay, Iggy, Layton and Duceppe will have access to the documents but nobody else under oath of secrecy."

...ummm no, there will be one MP from each party. Chance are it will NOT be the party leaders since they don't have time to read tens of thousands of pages.

Unionist

Parliament demanded documents, and now all parties have agreed that (a) Parliament won't get them, and (b) the public may never know what is in them.

Difference: there will be three Iacobuccis who decide what the public (including all MPs but 4) has the right to know, and in what form.

Furthermore, all parties appear to have recognized that "national security" could conceivably be at stake in accounts of the handover of detainees.

The NDP calls this a "VICTORY"! Indeed. For Harper. And Paul Martin. and Jean Chrétien. They can stop worrying about those pesky war crimes charges now.

[url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/milliken-does-right-thing#comm... a previous thread:[/url]

jrootham wrote:
What I expect is a committee (possibly ad hoc) formed according to the Standing Rules.  The committee gets to decide what becomes public (although it is not at all unlikely that Harper will try to parlay that into a cover up/confidence vote).

Wrong! Nice try though. The committee will not get to decide. Some "experts" will. With no recourse from their decision.

Nice way to uphold the supremacy of Parliament!

Harper wins.

NDPP

and so it goes...

Polunatic2

Quote:
 Nice way to uphold the supremacy of Parliament!

This could set a very dangerous precedent. I wonder how long it will take Harper to pull the same shit with some other file claiming "national security". Or perhaps the opposition parties will just stop asking for documents. That way Harper won't have to say no.  Politicians seem to forget that they are elected to represent voters/citizens who should have a right to know what the government is doing in our name. Is complicity in covering up war crimes (in the name of national security of course) a crime? 

I guess before I get too smarmy, I should wait to see who's on the panel of eminent persons.

NDPP

Harper Pleased With Afghan Document Deal

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/05/14/detainee-deal.html

"In your ruling on April 27, you were confident that members of Parliament of all parties could come to an agreement. I just want you to know that confidence was not misplaced." - Min of Justice Rob Nicholson to Speaker Milliken

the right hand washes the left and both wash the face...

Unionist

It's hard to know what to say in the face of such cowardly bastards that are allowing Harper to destroy this country.

 

NDPP

Unionist wrote:

It's hard to know what to say in the face of such cowardly bastards that are allowing Harper to destroy this country.

NDPP

the above is an excellent start Unionist

Augustus

The Opposition backed down on a lot of their demands pretty fast, as usual.

Another win for Harper.

Stockholm

Of course Harper will try to claim victory. What else do you expect from him - contrition???  But the important thing is that some MPs will get access to the documents and if they discover incriminating evidence - then we will hear about it. We may not see verbatim word for word transcripts - but I think that if the opposition MPs come across an unredacted document which is an e-mail directly from PM Harper ordering Canadians soldiers to torture - we will hear about it.

Polunatic2

Quote:
 if the opposition MPs come across an unredacted document which is an e-mail directly from PM Harper ordering Canadians soldiers to torture - we will hear about it.

Not too reassuring since that's not how things work. First, the three opposition MPs who will have access to the documents will be sworn to secrecy so we won't be hearing from them. Second, while we may abhor the con's policies, that doesn't make them fools.  Harper is not going to put into writing something that is known to be a war crime. There will be a paper trail and it will have to be followed. And the conservatives will fight over every comma, semi-colon and period. And we will not know what they're fighting over because the opposition has agreed not to tell us directly. We will only know what we're told which may be a summary or a yet again redacted document. 

 

Unionist

The key thing here must not be forgotten - that Parliament's order to disclose the documents has been defied, and that all the "opposition" parties are now complicit in that. They are terrified of Harper - and rightly so - but not enough to actually stand up to him.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Pundits on P&P predicted tonight we could very well be in an election in the fall before any documents are actually seen by the Opposition.

Politics101

Is there any chance that the Speaker will veto this agreement as not going far enough and order the parties back to the table?

Unionist

Politics101 wrote:

Is there any chance that the Speaker will veto this agreement as not going far enough and order the parties back to the table?

Oh absolutely, the Speaker will explain to all the parties in the House that they are cowardly shits who don't understand the first thing about parliamentary primacy, and he will give them a mighty tongue-lashing.

Wake me up when it's over. I can't stand to see grown politicians cry.

Harper wins again.

Chester Drawers

LTJ  the cons are ready to go.  The war chest is full, ridings are full, the posters are ready all we need is the call.  Iggy and his league of wimps know they will lose seats.  They know the Dippers, Bloc and Cons will take seats away from them.  Any vote that comes to the house that would force an election or speaker ruling; the Libs will be either sitting on their hands or at home sick.  The only parties willing to bring down the Cons are the Dippers and Bloc.  Those parties have a back bone,  a little bent, but one none the less.

No election untill fall 2012.

Michelle

Yup, Harper wins.

Why vote?  Time for people to focus their energy on making a difference in ways other than the political process.  There's just no point anymore.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all ... are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted ... deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government  [by whatever means necessary] ... "

 

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

I find it very, very difficult to tolerate the Harperites who engage us here.

They understand that our democracy is under attack and increasingly crippled - and simply don't care. They recognize the lies and spin utilized by Harper and broadcast uncritically by our compromised media - and they take delight in it. They think that ignoring election finance and spending rules is a mark of genius - and gloat about their cheating.

If they are 'ready to go', I hope it's to hell.

Chester Drawers

Right beside the progressives.

remind remind's picture

Well..... thanks for that "sage" advice michelle, sounds just like it came out of the CON War Room.

thorin_bane

Fuck it bring on the revolution I am so tired of this BULLSHIT...Ill take out my con friend first if need be. They, like chester, love the dishonesty and think of it all as just a game. A FUCKING GAME. We are talking about peoples live but for them its all a game. Call it kingmaker or whatever and most of the dunces in Ottawa play the same game even our own NDP. This has to stop right now. We have seen democracy slipping for years now and in the span of 4 year by using a minority government as the backdrop the whole thing has been smashed up(at least what was left).

I have seen people who are totally apolitical upset at whats happening but feel voting is still a waste of time. My mom pretty much a nun(she attended a nunnery at one point) swearing at the TV when ever Harper is on. And yet the smug asshole in the con party like kory the tory on P&P gloat about how dishonest they are. Even the panel talks about "the game"

Well for most of us its not a game. No more words its time for action. Greece is only the beginning. That is why they are trying to nip it in the bud.

The stock market crash was the banks flexing their muscles against Obama saying how he wanted to reign in the banks...well I guess its now pitchfork time as the peasants have had enough. Watch the dominos fall. Even though the market is doing well the rest of the economy is struggling at best. If the clawbacks in greece start taking shape in other countries we may take part in the worlds greatest change in history. Not some simple revolt in one country but a change worldwide.

how long till the net is "shaped" to no longer allow us to communicate. This is empowering people and allowing for organization. This will not be allowed to continue and places like canada with tolerant people are the guinea pigs for ever new designs by the wealthy on how to smash the poor just a little more. Direct their hate against themselves. I know I am on a bit of a rant but I NEVER thought I would see this country so f'd up in such a short period of time.

JKR

Michelle wrote:

Yup, Harper wins.

Why vote?  Time for people to focus their energy on making a difference in ways other than the political process.  There's just no point anymore.

 

If progressives disengage from the political process, then Harper will truly have won.

NDPP

Dobbin's blog:

The Liberals have Sabotaged Parliament

http://www.rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/murray-dobbin/2010/05/liberals-have-...

"The agreement reached at the 11th hour on the uncensored Afghan torture documents is hardly a victory for democracy. It is precisely the opposite...The Liberals and the NDP early on allowed the Conservatives to frame the argument as one involving national security and then further allowed them to suggest that MPs are so irresponsible that they can't be trusted to read the documents and not reveal national security secrets to the Taliban. This is sheer idiocy on both counts.."

NP:

MPs Reach Agreement to Share Afghan Detainee Info

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=3028064

"The justice minister said the redactions by public servants 'are done by non-partisan public servants who have the best interests of this country at heart,' and who will be available to explain them to the MPs...'This is a good day for Canadian democracy', Liberal MP Dominic Leblanc, who also participated in negotiations told reporters. 'We're all delighted with this historic agreement.'

The Star

Travers: Afghan Prisoner Safety a Political Fiction

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/afghanmission/article/809836--travers...

"Now that they have a deal, opposition parties need a place to start in making sense of some 40,000 Afghanistan detainee documents. That place is the first week of May, 2007..."

Triphop

"Fuck it bring on the revolution I am so tired of this BULLSHIT."

Religious fruitcake poppy farmer acid tossing woman haters with RPGs aren't a good hill to die on, my friend. I don't think the NDP want to fight over this either. The Libs won't either cause they were in power when the handovers were starting. The opposition parties will allow this issue to go away because its political poison. Theyll find some other thing to whack the Cons with. Who knows, maybe even not funding the Navy enough. If I was the Opposition I'd go after the Devinder Shory scam. That's pure ADSCAM grade gold.

The Greeks are fighting over money. Or maybe soccer game fixing. Or maybe they just like to torch buildings with people in them. The Greek riots are nothing better than a thuggish vandalism spree. If the bailout guarantees them better vacations theyll go back to bribing bureaucrats. Nothing lofty there.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Suggesting that there is some ethnic predisposition to irrationality that leads to vandalism among Greek people is clearly prejudiced. You no doubt applaud all the vandalism that came with the American Revolution, yet get your knickers in a knot when its not centuries ago and layered over with years of "feel good" spin.

Triphop wrote:

Religious fruitcake poppy farmer acid tossing woman haters with RPGs aren't a good hill to die on, my friend. I don't think the NDP want to fight over this either. The Libs won't either cause they were in power when the handovers were starting.

Talking about backward medieval style extremist ideologies, you seem a little bit confused here. You don't seem to be fully alive to the idea that torturing people in order to determine their guilt or innocence by securing a confession is a medieval practice, one more in keeping with the inquisition, or the witch trials, just like "acid throwing'

Notice here, I am saying "determine their guilt or innocence", because that is indeed what is going on. Some of those tortured were let go because the Afghan's determined that they were innocent -- indeed the Canadian army complained that some detainees had been freed. This means that not all the people who have been tortured are, as you say, "Religious fruitcake poppy farmer acid tossing woman haters with RPGs."

But that is merely an aside. I know it is an uphill battle discussing such things as "principles" with NDP stalwarts but the fact is that even Nazi's have rights. Yes they do. I know it's shocking, but the fundamental principle of "rights" is that they are universal, and apply to all. And the reason for this is quite simple: If you support a system of justice that does not apply a universal code of human rights to any and all then they are not "rights" they are merely "privileges", to be given or taken away at the whim of the state.

In short, if "Religious fruitcake poppy farmer acid tossing woman haters with RPGs", don't have rights, you don't have them either. Don't worry. You will be fine. I don't actually think anyone will ever be coming for you, because I doubt anyone in power is at all worried about you threatening their power. When faced with their abuses of fundamental ethics and rights you seem more than happy to curl up in a ball, and start gnawing on some minor financial abuses by some back woods lawyer.

Why on earth would Harper be afraid of that?

In any case, like most politicos its quite evident that you aren't interested in anything concerning "principles" and "human rights" and all that rot, (could this be because you don't actually understand what they are?) and are more interested in what you think is politically tractionable, but I hate to break it to you, the erosion of the basic principles in law, order and due process that you are giving such short shrift, is the very same erosion, which will mean that your Devinder Shory "scandal" will also die on the vine.

JKR wrote:

Michelle wrote:

Yup, Harper wins.
Why vote? Time for people to focus their energy on making a difference in ways other than the political process. There's just no point anymore.

If progressives disengage from the political process, then Harper will truly have won.

It's not a political process that people have any influence over, that is the point.

Triphop

"Suggesting that there is some ethnic predisposition to irrationality that leads to vandalism among Greek people is clearly prejudiced." Its the greek state thats a mess. You get a few decades tug of war between commies and fascists and you get this kind of political culture. There is a problem with endemic corruption in Greece that's nowhere else in Europe except maybe places like Naples. Case in point is the rotten postal systems in these places that even Ebay sellers wont send to since stuff is always claimed stolen. You have to bribe everybody to get anywhere. ANd these countries all have proportional voting which means backroom deals between crooks to govern. The result is people pissed off cause the legal and political system gets you nowhere so they take to the streets. La-la Land in America is another basketcase like this. Britain is turning to this with the vote fraud and reporters being beaten up by thugs. The Taliban dont live in Canada so they don't Have Charter Rights. They never signed the Hague or Geneva Conventions so they don't have those rights. You think rights are universal? Rights are different or even nonexistent depending on where you are or who you are. How about rights to armed defense or own property. We have neither in our constitution. Neither America nor Canada have rights to medical treatment. Women on native rezes here don't have the dower and gender equality rights women everywhere else have. Rights arent universal. You also just won't get any public sympathy for people who are in the news squirting acid on little girls faces for going to schools or people who claim inocence but have C4 residue on their hands. And any assignment of blame will inevitably entangle individual soldiers. Who do you think 95% of the voting public will get behind? This is why Layton is dropping his peacenik stance by claiming the Cons arent spending ENOUGH on the Navy. Any dirt on detainee handovers will also cover the Liberal era so Iggy wont press it. What will come out of this is a list of Recommendations for Detainee Transfers. Nothing more. People here who think this resonates with the public need to get out more and talk to people outside their Project Ploughshares circle. There is a big danger with progressive types here of insular thinking and ignoring what the majority of ordinary people think. Politicians in our plurality system have popular opinion as their bread and butter and wont piss off the public by coming down on Canadian soldiers over taliban rights.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Triphop wrote:
The Taliban dont live in Canada so they don't Have Charter Rights. They never signed the Hague or Geneva Conventions so they don't have those rights. You think rights are universal? Rights are different or even nonexistent depending on where you are or who you are. How about rights to armed defense or own property. We have neither in our constitution. Neither America nor Canada have rights to medical treatment. Women on native rezes here don't have the dower and gender equality rights women everywhere else have. Rights arent universal. You also just won't get any public sympathy for people who are in the news squirting acid on little girls faces for going to schools or people who claim inocence but have C4 residue on their hands. And any assignment of blame will inevitably entangle individual soldiers. Who do you think 95% of the voting public will get behind? This is why Layton is dropping his peacenik stance by claiming the Cons arent spending ENOUGH on the Navy. Any dirt on detainee handovers will also cover the Liberal era so Iggy wont press it. What will come out of this is a list of Recommendations for Detainee Transfers. Nothing more. People here who think this resonates with the public need to get out more and talk to people outside their Project Ploughshares circle. There is a big danger with progressive types here of insular thinking and ignoring what the majority of ordinary people think. Politicians in our plurality system have popular opinion as their bread and butter and wont piss off the public by coming down on Canadian soldiers over taliban rights.

I guess the SS executing Canadian prisoners during WWII was just fine, given that Canadians were not German, and therefore had no protection under German law. But I doubt that it would have been an issue that "resonated" much with the German public (full marks their for you) on the other hand being anti-semitic was something that German's could "get behind" in the 1930' -- Guess that must be alright since the object is getting elected, not doing what is right or wrong.

Handing over the agenda to the "right" by propagating the opinion that people in Canada are naturally "behind" increased military spending, and increased interventionism is just more un-evidenced assertion, and false populism. You and Layton think that you are making an appeal to popular opinion, but all you are really doing is adding weight to the arguments that the right will use gain further power. And when it comes down to it, now that you have argued their case for them, people are not going to start voting for wishy-washy liberal-NDP faux militarism, they will vote for the real, hard right militarism of the Tories.

People want alternatives. Aping right wing talking points, in the hope they will "resonate" for you, as well as they do for the right does nothing but reinforce their position.

You don't seem to understand at all. You just don't know how wrong you are. The "rights" of Afghan detainees, are just as much part of Canadian law, as any in the charter. It is irrelevant if Afghan's (not necessarily Taliban since we know some of these detainees were released -- I hope you understand that not all Afghan's picked up by Canadian forces are necessarily militants, but merely suspects) do not have charter rights: they have rights under Canadian military law and our obligations under international law.

In fact, their rights as combatants are covered in the Geneva Convention, and covered by the ICC, to which Canada is a signatory. That is just the legality. The implication of eroding those principles of "rights" in law which are most definitely part of Canadian law, means that they can do the same with any Canadian "rights" in law, even those that protect you under the charter.

How right am I? Very. For even now the US government, having made short shrift of the principles of international law for the past decade, have now put their first American citizen on its "terrorist" hit list for summary execution, based on secret evidence, and without a trial.

 

 

 

skdadl

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions covers every person, as in every human being, and that has been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hamdan v Rumsfeld (2006), in the face of Bush admin attempts to define some people outside of humanity by calling them "illegal enemy combatants." The Bush-Cheney manoeuvre is of course being tried again, there and here, but international law has not changed on this score. All people, whatever their status, as soon as they are hors de combat must be treated humanely, must be given medical attention if needed, etc. And torture is out for everyone, as is battlefield execution. That's everyone, as in everyone.

RockyRacoon

When they tied a rope around Saddam Hussain's neck and threw him over the balcony to his death people ran to the microwave to make popcorn.  What is going to get the people out of their armchairs and into the streets is the domestic economy. People who are so stressed that they dont know if they will have a pension or even a job in the next week or month or year cannot think straight or figure out who best represents their interests when the truth is none of them do.  They are all loyal to the capitalist state and that is how it is going to stay-  Unless we have an actual revolution.  End of Story.

RR

Triphop

"I guess the SS executing Canadian prisoners during WWII was just fine, given that Canadians were not German, and therefore had no protection under German law."

Not Nazi or Common law law but the Hague and Geneva rules which both the Dominion of Canada and Germany were signatory to. This meant that mistreating Nazi prisoners was illegal. There is no such case with Taliban prisoners. The Taliban and al Qaeda arent countries and never signed anything meaning Canada has no obligation. An admission of this is the use of expanding ammo instead of FMJ against insurgents something forbidden under the Hgue convention. There are no universal rights. There was a big stink when the Karzai government tried to allow a law enabling Shia men to rape their wives. The concept of women having rights to their own bodies and not being the chattels of men doesnt exist in cultures like that. Even in Canada there is the amazing black hole of rights with women on reserves who have no rights to custody or inheritance when their husbands dump them. That rez is ethnically cleansing what they say are non natives and nobody is doing a thing about it. The Charter has the Notwithstanding Clause which basically makes the whole thing a joke. Just because you dont think something is right doesnt mean that some Universal Right is being broken cause there arent any.

If you dont believe me about support for the army go and take a poll of somebody other than antiwar activists. This is just a reality. Don't get blinded by your own biases. Im sure if you asked people at a Knights of Columbus meeting 100% would say they should ban abortion and gay marriage, but most Canadians would not agree. Too many people of any political persuasion end up talking only to like mindeds and not guaging what people outside of their circles think. Politicians have to do this because its do or die. This is why the NDP is shifting right on the war issue even if it pisses you off and the Cons don't want to go anywhere near the gay marriage issue even if it pisses the bible thumpers off. Layton and Harper are smart with following populism. The only retard politician in the mix is Iggy who decided to whip the gunregistry vote and shoot his mouth off over the Govgen. This will cost the Libs dearly in even urban elections and make the party dump Ignatieff the bumbling professor.

skdadl

Triphop, you are wrong. Common Article 3 says you're wrong; the Supreme Court of the U.S.A. has recently said you are wrong. How many times do you have to be told you are wrong?

 

Every human being must be treated humanely. Every human being. Which part of that expression are you having trouble grasping?

Bookish Agrarian

I am really impressed with the amazing quality of all these crystal balls.  I mean knowing today what will happen before these party representatives even start examining the documents and then decide how to deal with what they might reveal is an incredible skill.  Could you folks also give me the numbers for the next Lotto 6/49.

Triphop

What part of "did not sign the Geneva Accord and Hague Convention" do you not understand? What do you mean by humanely?

I really dont like that women on rezes like two I know lose everything including their kids when their husband dumps them. I don't like that Canada has no property rights meaning that a company in BC can take the land your house sits on because they want to mine clay for kitty litter under it. And I really don't like that it's still illegal to convert from Islam in Afghanistan or most other Muslim countries and that there is no sexual equality or laws against spousal battery. Why do you think people care about some guy caught with IED parts shooting at Canadian soldiers getting handed to AFGHAN police and getting his teeth knocked out by his own people? As for humane some of the complaints are a joke. Amnesty International cited dirty toilets. Really? Half the civilian kids in Afghanistan poop over holes in the ground. Broadening the scope of this to Guantanamo we have complaints about toilets facing Mecca and scented soap and being touched by women. Complete rubbish. And how in the heck are Canadians supposed to deal with enemy combattants? Build Canadian-run jails? Let them plant IEDs instead of capturing them? Please spare your sympathies for real horrors like the mistreatment of women and children in these societies and here. These are people who are actually in dire need of being treated humanely.

 

skdadl

Triphop, it doesn't matter a good goddamn whether the Taliban signed anything or not. Common Article 3 covers every living human being. Read it (it's short), and read Hamdan (it's interesting). For pity's sake: even George Bush accepted Hamdan. (Well, in theory.)

 

BA, I can make a good guess at what is in some of those documents -- evidence of active complicity with both the NDS and the U.S. DIA. And I can tell you for sure the ruse the Conservatives are going to use to cover it up -- "damage to international relations," and then the ever-popular "national security." We have to hope that a few of our judges have been reading the British judges on those scores.

 

 

 

 

Bookish Agrarian

I'm pretty sure that there are very bad things in those documents too.  What I am talking about is all these condemnations of inaction before any documents have been looked at.  I know a few opposition MPs very well (in all three opposition parties even).  One of them I expect will be named to this committee.  I find it impossible to believe that if they find evidence of wrong doing that they won't find ways to make sure it is revealed.  Yet I see people condemning their actions before anything has even started.  I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt based on a stellar record on important issues, if nothing happens then that is the time to rail.

That is an amazing crystal ball to already know conclusively the outcome of something that hasn't happened yet.  Anyone with that gift should easily be able to provide me with the next Lotto numbers.

Polunatic2

Quote:
I find it impossible to believe that if they find evidence of wrong doing that they won't find ways to make sure it is revealed.  

They will be signing secrecy / confidentiality agreements. They would be acting in bad faith if they were to "make sure it is revealed".  Is the game not rigged? 

skdadl

Well, BA, you go on observing the comfortable elaborate courtesies with your friends in Canada, who are now committed to what may be an extremely lengthy process. All I was asking was that, in the meantime, one of your friends might speak publicly and forcefully to the subject that matters rather more than their careers, which is that some Afghans are being tortured in Afghanistan tonight, and we inevitably have had something to do with that.

Cueball Cueball's picture

"Rights", as expressed in law have absolutely nothing to do with an individuals acceptance of any code, law, charter or constitution. Just as "rights" can not be abrogaged by voluntary refusal of rights (for example, one can not legally sign away ones right to freedom of speech) they are not activated by recognition of those rights, they are rights that are manifested by state that applies them.

Triphop, at what point in time did you "sign" the charter, in order that it might be applicable to yourself?

Never? Right. The charter still applies.

You are obviously completed confounded by the concept of rights, and what they are. This is probably why freely flowing from this discourse of yours is a total misaprehntion of due process. Simply put, you have no idea who actually threw acid at the school girls, and who did not, but you are perfectly willing to go forward on the racist assumption that any Afghan male captured by the Canadian forces, is jointly culpable in the crime. Persons captured by Canadian forces, are not necessarily anything but innocent farmers. Many are suspects only. However, your assumption is that all persons captured are perforce "Taliban", and can be dealt with as if all militants are jointly culpable for the acts of others, basically. By such logic all Afghans are Taliban, once in custody.

Should every single US soldier in uniform during the Vietnam war have served the same sentence as William Calley for the Mai Lai massacre, via guilt by association?

Among other things, Canada actually has responsibilities to protect civilians as an occupying power, rounding up people and having them tortured by local "authorities" in order to find out if they are militants, does not accord with Canada's obligations under the Geneva convention, in regard to the protection of civilian persons.

"Build Canadian run jails"? Exactly. That is what we did with German prisoners during WWII. We did not, as a rule, hand German prisoners over to the Free French, because we knew what would happen to them if we did.

 

Triphop

Cueball the charter only applies to people on Canadian soil. Or so says the Supreme Court. This means that foreign nationals in Canada are entitled to charter protection as in R vs Singh but not foreign nationals abroad. Me and you "signed on" to the charter by being on Canadian soil. Im not confused about rights because even things like due process and habeas corpus dont exist in many firstworld democracies. Rights are not universal and I agree thats bad. This isnt about what you think is right but what is legal and its perfectly legal to turn captured taliban combattants over to their countrymen. And yes these are captured armed Taliban irregulars not innocent dope farmers. You want Canadian run jails in Afghanistan then great. Go and convince Canadian taxpayers and politicians to pay millions of $$$ for them. Then tell the Afghans that you dont trust them to look after their own nationals even as NATO is trying to get them to build a civil society so we can leave as soon as possible. Lots of luck with that.

Bookish Agrarian I think the opposition will pretend to study the relevant materials then put together some kind of Recommendations for Detainee Transfers and move on. The Libs dont want this can of worms opened and the NDs won't press it. Belabouring this issue is pure political poison for everybody. Everybody will move on to something else. Miliken was smart to punt this back at the Commons.

 

 

 

Pages

Topic locked